http://www.fbi.gov/buffalo/press-release...-upcoming-trial


I am no lawyer, but I do know that in US v Emmons, the SCOTUS ruled Union members can not be indicted for extortion for maneuvering for a contract or jobs, even if it involved violence. Yet in this case the defendants were coerced into a guilty plea of extortion as part of a plea deal. This is bad and dangerous precedent and another of example of who prosecutors are out of control and get a free hand to violate the laws they are sworn to protect when it comes to OC.

causing trouble on the strike site or job site is completely different the beating someone up in a bar and also stabbing the guy. I hope they all get 20

US v Emmons did not allow unions to use extortion and violence in their collective bargaining efforts.The issue at hand in that case was whether or not the Union was in violation of the Hobbs act of 1934,which prohibited extortion and robbery as a means of coercion of Union Locals

The ruling held that there was not a violation because the Local in essence,is the property of the Union,therefore the Union was not violating the extortion or robbery clauses of Hobbs.This is not to say that other violations didn't occur,just that Hobbs was not violated.

In the Buffalo case you cited,US v Emmons would not apply because the victims were not union members,but third parties who were being pressured to join the Local. The prosecutors in this case are not violating any legal or ethical standards because Hobbs doesn't apply to the extortion of independent individuals.

I agree that there is bad law here,but in my opinion, the bad law is in not overturning US v Emmons.

You have laid out the prosicutions case, I happen to disagree(again, I am not a lawyer to it is just my laymans observation)
My understanding of Emmons is that it makes no differnce is the "victims" are union members or not, and it's not that they can't be charged with a crime, it's just not "extrortion"
My issue is here anytime an emmo9ns defence is used, the Feds are going to cite this case as an exception.

Arm,I'm not a lawyer either,(and given my disdain for that profession in general,I consider that a plus).
The way I read the case, the reason that the Emmons verdict went the way it did was because the Unions committed their offenses against an employer with whom they already had a collective bargaining agreement.
In the case you cited,I believe that it is a different situation because Local 17 used the violence,threats,and extortion against
innocent third parties with whom they had no collective bargaining agreement.
I know I'm simplifying it,but I believe that to be the essence of the case.

You might be right...any lawyers or legal experts out there?